I really shouldn’t give more air to a predictably bad take but sigh here we go, here’s why this take is bad. https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1336429446178480129

1. The most alarming thing—which I think most people said at the time—wasn’t so much the realistic prospect that SCOTUS would hand the election to Trump. It was that Trump and the GOP clearly thought they should set that up, and did so.

They seized the highest court in the nation as a political tool in a far more naked and brazen way than they ever have, because they knew there would be no consequences.

Please tell me why that isn’t something to get SORT OF worked up about, Nate.

2. This election ultimately wasn’t that close. A closer election, in any of the few crucial states, and suddenly we are looking at a whole different goddamn picture.

Why? Because I’m not a SCOTUS observer but I listen closely to people who are, and I’ve picked up a thing.

Roberts cares in an incredibly shallow and cynical way about what he views as the “legitimacy” of the Court. That means he’s unlikely to want to entertain ridiculous cases that put even the hackiest of conservative hack Justices in an awkward position.

A closer election, a slimmer margin of Biden victory, and suddenly these cases aren’t so ridiculous. Suddenly there’s more of a chance that lower courts will legitimize them by handing down favorable rulings. Giving SCOTUS:

3. Cover.

Something that I think even @NateSilver538 should have picked up on by now is that a lot of judges, even very hacky ones, do not enjoy putting out the impression that they have been bought and paid for. Some of them don’t care, but a lot of them do.

And the margin of victory is at play here, which means these cases are going to be waaaaaay more of a reach, and also the Trump administration employed a bunch of circus clowns who can’t write a fucking brief.

Which doesn’t give judges much cover.

I’ve seen multiple writings from various conservative judges—and from SCOTUS itself in other cases—basically saying “if you weren’t such fucking circus clowns and had brought me even a semi-coherent legal argument I would have loved to have helped you out”.

“But you didn’t, and this case is utterly ludicrous, and I will shred my gd reputation if I don’t kick you out of my courtroom, so sorry but bye”.

A lot of judges are hacks, but there is a culture of professionalism at work here and they do often care about reputation.

We’ve gotten so used to the total lack of shame and concern for reputation on the part of conservative LEGISLATORS that I think we’ve forgotten that the same cannot so consistently be said for conservative JUDGES.

They’re a horrible bunch, don’t get me wrong, but differently.

So we have two big variables here, either of which might have easily turned out differently.

1. The closeness of the election
2. The competence of Trump’s legal team

A closer election, a more competent legal team, suddenly we are in a fuck of a lot more danger.

I am beyond terrible at statistics but I am still incorporating the relevant variables into my analysis better than @NateSilver538 lmao

Never send a statistician to do a theorist’s job

(That’s very glib, sorry, some of my best friends are statisticians)

So were we wrong to be alarmed about Trump arranging a SCOTUS bench that would give him the election?

I mean, there was some less advisable panic around the edges, but on the whole, no, we were not.

Because it might very easily have been a much closer election.

Because Trump’s legal team might have handed friendly judges in lower courts much more cover, making it easier for SCOTUS to take up a crucial case.

Would it have done? I don’t know. But it would probably have been easier.

Saying “the fears about SCOTUS handing Trump the election have not aged well” is the classic fallacy where you assume that just because we dodged the bullet, we never should have worried about the gun.

We had every reason to be very, very worried about the gun, because it was loaded and the people holding it were looking for any excuse to fire. And they had the gun in the first place, and they intended to fire it at fucking *democracy*.

And that’s a very tortured analogy but you see what I’m saying.

This might have gone differently. It didn’t. We worked very hard and we got lucky.

We are up against people who have *no* problem weaponizing the judiciary and we might not be so lucky next time.

With a closer election. With a better legal team. With a smarter autocrat.

Bet your ass I was worried about SCOTUS handing an illegitimate president an election.

I am still worried about that. Because it could still happen.

And the one big lesson I think we should all draw from @NateSilver538 is what I said above: don’t send a statistician to do a theorist’s job.

Being good at numbers doesn’t make you even a halfway useful pundit. Just like being a pundit doesn’t make you useful with numbers.

(I frankly think the utility of pundits in general is up for a great deal of debate but it’s something I’ve sort of tripped backwards into doing on here, and I don’t think I’m awful at it although I’m wrong all the time.)

...you know, really that entire fucking thread could have just been me tweeting “Bush v. Gore” and dropping the mic and walking offstage, sorry for putting you all through that.

There’s that one bit from The West Wing where Josh says they should arrange some firewood in a tripod and Sam says “yeah, standing 3 sticks on an end and slanting them to a common center” and Josh is like “so you just thought you’d say more words” and I felt so seen